The majority of what you find on the internet off of pages like tumblr and other post your own blog sites are of course not what we're talking about. Yes, they come with the name "blogger", but any joe with a zine is also a "columnist" in exactly the same why. To criticize a web only writer because they're a "blogger" show little understanding of how the term differs from other terms used to carry some sort of imaginary credentials.

But *I* could make a blog and opine on baseball. Does that make me a credible journalist?

__________________
Ridiculousness across all sports:

(1) "You have no valid opinion because you never played the game."
(2) "Stats are irrelevant. This guy just doesn't know how to win."

No, I'm sorry, you are wrong. I also don't mean to be insulting, but it's attitude's like yours that are perpetrated by the print media to discredit the internet.

Whether or not someone has been trained has no bearing on their status as a columnist. A columnist is someone who writes in print media. Someone who writes for a website is only also a columnist if they contribute to a print media. Those that write strictly on the internet are bloggers. Those are solid definitions with no bearing on training. Now, most blogs write like op ed pieces sure, but do you call into question sports editorials in print media simply because they're such?

The majority of what you find on the internet off of pages like tumblr and other post your own blog sites are of course not what we're talking about. Yes, they come with the name "blogger", but any joe with a zine is also a "columnist" in exactly the same why. To criticize a web only writer because they're a "blogger" show little understanding of how the term differs from other terms used to carry some sort of imaginary credentials.

Credentials are not imaginary. And what is required to earn those credentials provides the holders with greater access and understanding of the truth.

I question any sports story that does not name sources, whether it is in print or online. Years ago, I would have questioned it if it were in your newsletter. Look at the Frontline story linking brain injuries and football and the book that preceded it. The stakes are much more important than the trivial stuff you're talking about, and there wasn't a single anonymous source or even a source quoted off camera. I do tend to give professional journalists a bit more wiggle room in this area because they should have the training and experience to know when they are being played, but precious little. If I read a blogger with an unnamed source, I might trust him if he e-mailed me enough information about his source on request, but I'm not sure I would give Ray Ratto much more slack just because he's an experienced professional.

I can't imagine there are any reliable bloggers who wouldn't rather be making a good living with an "credentials institution."

The man sitting at the Denny's counter may be the greatest source who ever lived, but I have no reason to believe him just because he's holding court at a Denny's counter.

But *I* could make a blog and opine on baseball. Does that make me a credible journalist?

No. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDog

Credentials are not imaginary. And what is required to earn those credentials provides the holders with greater access and understanding of the truth.

I question any sports story that does not name sources, whether it is in print or online. Years ago, I would have questioned it if it were in your newsletter. Look at the Frontline story linking brain injuries and football and the book that preceded it. The stakes are much more important than the trivial stuff you're talking about, and there wasn't a single anonymous source or even a source quoted off camera. I do tend to give professional journalists a bit more wiggle room in this area because they should have the training and experience to know when they are being played, but precious little. If I read a blogger with an unnamed source, I might trust him if he e-mailed me enough information about his source on request, but I'm not sure I would give Ray Ratto much more slack just because he's an experienced professional.

I can't imagine there are any reliable bloggers who wouldn't rather be making a good living with an "credentials institution."

The man sitting at the Denny's counter may be the greatest source who ever lived, but I have no reason to believe him just because he's holding court at a Denny's counter.

Credentials come in many forms, and being completely honest, have lost a lot of their meaning in recent years. I'm not going to completely get into it (because it's very political, especially with recent revelations), but print publications now almost exclusively have an agenda, whether in the political sector or in the sports world (see ESPN). Really, the ONLY place to be free from that is the internet.

Tell me, what passes for better credentials? A degree in journalism, or writing the truth? Because the two are slowly becoming mutually exclusive. To claim that someone is more trust-worthy simply because they work for a print publication isn't just a false statement, it leans more towards the opposite of the truth.

Credentials come in many forms, and being completely honest, have lost a lot of their meaning in recent years. I'm not going to completely get into it (because it's very political, especially with recent revelations), but print publications now almost exclusively have an agenda, whether in the political sector or in the sports world (see ESPN). Really, the ONLY place to be free from that is the internet.

Tell me, what passes for better credentials? A degree in journalism, or writing the truth? Because the two are slowly becoming mutually exclusive. To claim that someone is more trust-worthy simply because they work for a print publication isn't just a false statement, it leans more towards the opposite of the truth.

The best bloggers (and I'm thinking of three examples in my head; Rich Miller of Cap Fax reporting on Springfield and Illinois politics; Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism reporting on finance the economy; and Jim Margalus of Southside Sox) all either tend to follow journalistic ethics, and/or are analyzing news and not reporting on it themselves. Many of the bloggers are either content aggregrators or analysts, there aren't all that many who report on news themselves.

The best bloggers (and I'm thinking of three examples in my head; Rich Miller of Cap Fax reporting on Springfield and Illinois politics; Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism reporting on finance the economy; and Jim Margalus of Southside Sox) all either tend to follow journalistic ethics, and/or are analyzing news and not reporting on it themselves. Many of the bloggers are either content aggregrators or analysts, there aren't all that many who report on news themselves.

It just depends on where you're looking. Even big sites have their own "bloggers". ESPN included. It's a crapshoot, but everything is a crapshoot.

You know what differentiates a blogger from a columnist? Physical print. That's it. Yeah, some sites you simply sign up for. But this isn't tumblr. There's a screening process, they don't overlap blog topics, they pay the writers, and they fire people. The only difference between that site and anywhere else is your attitude.

Watch where you're going with this, because that's misleading. They pay a small group of the close to 400 bloggers based on their traffic, which is a huge conflict of interest with most of these hacks when you consider they are not held to the journalistic standards TDog pointed out. Not every Chicago Now blogger gets paid. Not even close. Not even remotely close.... Even if they have "sources" and "scout friends" who teach them about arm slot and inside administrative moves at Clark and Addison.

Tell me, what passes for better credentials? A degree in journalism, or writing the truth? Because the two are slowly becoming mutually exclusive. To claim that someone is more trust-worthy simply because they work for a print publication isn't just a false statement, it leans more towards the opposite of the truth.

If it's the truth, give me the source.

There is a lot of bad journalism, and I have called journalists on it and have been criticized for calling journ. Some of it's sloppy. Some of it's irresponsible. And the reputations of the journalistic institutions suffer for it, so much so that the institutions have an obligation to hire the best people that they can.

Your overall point, though, is wildly ridiculous. If you self-publish a book on economics theory, it isn't going to have the same credibility as a book published by a university press that passes peer review, no matter how much you complain about the evils of the institutions keeping your theories down.

This is about standards and credibility. Your sources don't approach the professional standards that the media your are attacking, and they do not have anything approaching the credibility.

Watch where you're going with this, because that's misleading. They pay a small group of the close to 400 bloggers based on their traffic, which is a huge conflict of interest with most of these hacks when you consider they are not held to the journalistic standards TDog pointed out. Not every Chicago Now blogger gets paid. Not even close. Not even remotely close.... Even if they have "sources" and "scout friends" who teach them about arm slot and inside administrative moves at Clark and Addison.

I was unaware that some were unpaid. But that "conflict of interest" is exactly what the problem with print media is. This notion that it's not all for sales simply because there's an imagined line journalists of print won't cross is completely without merit. Sure, some might operate that way, or at least intend to, but the editorial process completely removes that. There's very few publications, maybe the guardian (and that's a big maybe), where other interests haven't completely removed any semblance of legitimacy. There's zero reason to not trust a "blogger" any more than any print journalist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDog

If it's the truth, give me the source.

There is a lot of bad journalism, and I have called journalists on it and have been criticized for calling journ. Some of it's sloppy. Some of it's irresponsible. And the reputations of the journalistic institutions suffer for it, so much so that the institutions have an obligation to hire the best people that they can.

Your overall point, though, is wildly ridiculous. If you self-publish a book on economics theory, it isn't going to have the same credibility as a book published by a university press that passes peer review, no matter how much you complain about the evils of the institutions keeping your theories down.

This is about standards and credibility. Your sources don't approach the professional standards that the media your are attacking, and they do not have anything approaching the credibility.

The university press peer review process won't stifle a study simply because it causes a conflict of interest with it's ownership group, so that example is wildly off base.

Back to the substance, the question isn't whether he actually has sources that suggest that the Cubs would like to have Sale...who wouldn't? It would be meaningful if he had sources in the Sox organization that said the Sox want to deal him.

Back to the substance, the question isn't whether he actually has sources that suggest that the Cubs would like to have Sale...who wouldn't? It would be meaningful if he had sources in the Sox organization that said the Sox want to deal him.

Indeed, but he went out of his way to say that wasn't the case.

FWIW, the Cubs are probably one of three teams that could actually put together a prospect package worthy of a player like Sale.

Back to the substance, the question isn't whether he actually has sources that suggest that the Cubs would like to have Sale...who wouldn't? It would be meaningful if he had sources in the Sox organization that said the Sox want to deal him.

Exactly. "Reporting" that a dog bit a man is not newsworthy. Reporting that the man bit the dog back in retaliation is.

__________________"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)

"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." — George Orwell

The best bloggers (and I'm thinking of three examples in my head; Rich Miller of Cap Fax reporting on Springfield and Illinois politics; Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism reporting on finance the economy; and Jim Margalus of Southside Sox) all either tend to follow journalistic ethics, and/or are analyzing news and not reporting on it themselves. Many of the bloggers are either content aggregrators or analysts, there aren't all that many who report on news themselves.

Not sure about the first two, but Margalus is (was?) an actual journalist who just wrote about the Sox on the side because that's his passion, but it's not like he's some guy who just decided to write clear out of the blue.

His blog is not attached to any usual, traditional print outfit, but the level of writing at SSS is on par with, if not better, than any print source on the Sox, so I consider him a very credible source about Sox news. I have yet to see anyone at Chicago Now even approach his level of talent and professionalism.

Not sure about the first two, but Margalus is (was?) an actual journalist who just wrote about the Sox on the side because that's his passion, but it's not like he's some guy who just decided to write clear out of the blue.

His blog is not attached to any usual, traditional print outfit, but the level of writing at SSS is on par with, if not better, than any print source on the Sox, so I consider him a very credible source about Sox news. I have yet to see anyone at Chicago Now even approach his level of talent and professionalism.

SSS is hosted at SB Nation, not sure if that's still affiliated with SI, but even if so, it's a loose one.

Miller has subscribers (one or two posts a day of the usual six or seven is behind a paywall) and has a journalism background, as well.

I'm not sure if there are similar bloggers who don't have some type of professional or journalistic experience.